Bangladesh Keen To Join Saudi-Pak-Turkey Defence Alliance, Says PM's Top Aide

[Owaiz]

This Makkah Pact reminds me of the six blind men of Indostan who went to see an elephant. Its full text is still not public, but everyone has their own definitive opinion on what its purpose is.

Turkiye thinks it will contain Greece, even though Greek Patriot batteries are currently defending Saudi Arabia against missile and drone attacks.

The regime in Pakistan thinks it will contain India, even though Saudi Arabia has friendly ties with India and their investments and trade with India are orders of magnitude higher.

Then there is the Israel bogey, even though Israel has never ever attacked any of the signatories where each of the three countries has faced attacks from Iran no earlier than at least 2024.

What is beyond dispute is that Saudi Arabia is that both Pakistan and Turkey are facing economic struggles and Saudi Arabia is struggling with ongoing security threats emanating from Iran and the American security guarantee has proved insufficient.

For all the talk about ummah chummah , each country is in it for itself. Turkiye and Pakistan don't really want to destabilise their own security situation or go to war for the Saudis, but they want Saudi funding for their defence and economy, in general. Saudi Arabia doesn't want to jeopardise its relationships with Greece and India and even a possible rapprochement with Israel sometime in the future, once Netanyahu is out of the picture, but they want to fill the gaps in their security and to force Iran and its allies to stop attacking them and their oil routes.

Now, as far as Bangladesh is concerned, they do have a history of exporting security services though the United Nations, and, Saudi Arabia has learnt from the experience with America, not to put all their eggs in one basket. So, they as the main financier should be happy to host Bangladeshi troops as much as those from Pakistan, especially since Bangladesh , being geographically distant, doesn't have the same sensitivity about getting involved in a conflict with Iran as Pakistan does.

Now, of course, there is also geopolitical signalling from signing a pact and , as long as Bangladesh is willing to face the consequences, they have as much right to export their security services as anyone else. However, they should be realistic in their assessment that this is Saudi-funded security arrangement and not expect intervention on their behalf against Myanmar or India.

 

[Aghor Warrior]

This Makkah Pact reminds me of the six blind men of Indostan who went to see an elephant. Its full text is still not public, but everyone has their own definitive opinion on what its purpose is.

Turkiye thinks it will contain Greece, even though Greek Patriot batteries are currently defending Saudi Arabia against missile and drone attacks.

The regime in Pakistan thinks it will contain India, even though Saudi Arabia has friendly ties with India and their investments and trade with India are orders of magnitude higher.

Then there is the Israel bogey, even though Israel has never ever attacked any of the signatories where each of the three countries has faced attacks from Iran no earlier than at least 2024.

What is beyond dispute is that Saudi Arabia is that both Pakistan and Turkey are facing economic struggles and Saudi Arabia is struggling with ongoing security threats emanating from Iran and the American security guarantee has proved insufficient.

For all the talk about ummah chummah , each country is in it for itself. Turkiye and Pakistan don't really want to destabilise their own security situation or go to war for the Saudis, but they want Saudi funding for their defence and economy, in general. Saudi Arabia doesn't want to jeopardise its relationships with Greece and India and even a possible rapprochement with Israel sometime in the future, once Netanyahu is out of the picture, but they want to fill the gaps in their security and to force Iran and its allies to stop attacking them and their oil routes.

Now, as far as Bangladesh is concerned, they do have a history of exporting security services though the United Nations, and, Saudi Arabia has learnt from the experience with America, not to put all their eggs in one basket. So, they as the main financier should be happy to host Bangladeshi troops as much as those from Pakistan, especially since Bangladesh , being geographically distant, doesn't have the same sensitivity about getting involved in a conflict with Iran as Pakistan does.

Now, of course, there is also geopolitical signalling from signing a pact and , as long as Bangladesh is willing to face the consequences, they have as much right to export their security services as anyone else. However, they should be realistic in their assessment that this is Saudi-funded security arrangement and not expect intervention on their behalf against Myanmar or India.

Not even China has risked imposing a two-front war on India in direct coordination with Pakistan, because while such a scenario may look strategically advantageous for China and Pakistan on paper, it raises a much bigger question: what happens if Pakistan threatens or attempts to use nuclear weapons against India?

Would India respond with nuclear weapons against Pakistan alone, or would include China as well?

The same question applies to the countries involved in a hypothetical “Muslim NATO” or the states associated with the Mecca Agreement. If Pakistan were to threaten or attempt to use nuclear weapons against India, would India respond only against Pakistan, or could the response extend to the wider coalition ?

One important point also needs to be clarified: when discussing “use of nuclear weapons,” India is not referring only to a nuclear weapon successfully detonating. The intent to use nuclear weapons, including an attempted nuclear strike regardless of whether it ultimately succeeds, is considered use of nuclear weapons

 

[Owaiz]

Not even China has risked imposing a two-front war on India in direct coordination with Pakistan, because while such a scenario may look strategically advantageous for China and Pakistan on paper, it raises a much bigger question: what happens if Pakistan threatens or attempts to use nuclear weapons against India?

Would India respond with nuclear weapons against Pakistan alone, or would include China as well?

The same question applies to the countries involved in a hypothetical “Muslim NATO” or the states associated with the Mecca Agreement. If Pakistan were to threaten or attempt to use nuclear weapons against India, would India respond only against Pakistan, or could the response extend to the wider coalition ?

One important point also needs to be clarified: when discussing “use of nuclear weapons,” India is not referring only to a nuclear weapon successfully detonating. The intent to use nuclear weapons, including an attempted nuclear strike regardless of whether it ultimately succeeds, is considered use of nuclear weapons

This is not some Muslim NATO, more like an al Saud protection force. As for mutual defence clauses, even SEATO and CENTO had them, but they turned out to be paper tigers.

In a hypotherical conflict with Pakistan, would India go and attack Saudi Arabia solely because it is a member of this pact ? If not, why should it threaten Bangladesh and open another front unless Bangladesh were actually going to intervene in the war in Pakistan's favour?

 

[peagle]

Truth is ridiculous. Only falsehood seem acceptable in the thread.

I totally agree, Pakistanis have a sad habit of twisting truths into bare bone ridiculous statements. Once you play with truths, it becomes a lie.
Anything else, no matter how reasonable becomes a falsehood.

The fact that the most dominant expression, feeling or understanding with regards to the 1971 civil war is sorrow. To pretend otherwise is truthfully speaking just ridiculous.

 

[Aghor Warrior]

This is not some Muslim NATO, more like an al Saud protection force. As for mutual defence clauses, even SEATO and CENTO had them, but they turned out to be paper tigers.

In a hypotherical conflict with Pakistan, would India go and attack Saudi Arabia solely because it is a member of this pact ? If not, why should it threaten Bangladesh and open another front unless Bangladesh were actually going to intervene in the war in Pakistan's favour?

I personally think this so-called “Muslim NATO” is primarily posturing against Iran, rather than a serious collective-security arrangement directed at India. Both Turkey and Saudi Arabia have also conveyed to India secretly that it is not intended to be an anti-India alliance.

A genuine Muslim NATO involving Pakistan is difficult to make credible because of the unique nature of the India–Pakistan conflict: both countries are nuclear-armed, and India possesses surface to surface missile systems capable of reaching targets 5000km away. That makes any mutual-defence commitment involving Pakistan far more complicated than a conventional alliance.

NATO was originally built around the Soviet threat, and although the Soviet Union collapsed, NATO continued to exist. But even NATO's collective-defence framework has never meant automatic military intervention in every dispute involving a member. For example, India’s annexation of Goa did not trigger NATO collective defence.

So the real question is: what could a “Muslim NATO” realistically do against India that Pakistan could not already do through its own military? If its members are unwilling to risk direct confrontation with a nuclear-armed India, then a mutual-defence clause would have very limited practical value.